Talk:Swordsmanship: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Bot (Plugin) Tag Category:Warfare of the Medieval era. Medieval-task-force=yes. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPMILHIST |
{{WPMILHIST |
||
|class=Start |
|class=Start |
||
|Medieval-task-force=yes |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{martialartsproject|class=Start}} |
{{martialartsproject|class=Start}} |
Revision as of 18:41, 8 April 2007
Military history: Medieval Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Martial arts Start‑class | |||||||
|
Revamp
As you may have noticed, the main article has been revamped to include swordsmanship on a global scale. To provide this information without a massive article, I think it would be best to follow the WP:SS type of page design. This will allow us to provide succinct general information with wikilinks to more in depth and detailed articles that deal with a specific subsections of swordsmanship, be it swords themselves, schools, masters, or the tactical deployment of swordsmen in battle.
Because of this revamp, I have added an archive page and cleared the old talk page. As far as I'm concerned, the article is experiencing a rebirth, so the talk page needs a new beginning as well. Here it is! --xiliquierntalk 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
European Section
This section has been pretty heavily rewritten, but I think a few more important links could be added. In the mean time, I'd like if someone would verify my edits. I don't want to have any mistakes, big or small, made in the chronology or subject of the article. Thanks! --xiliquierntalk 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- You might should consider breaking the Modern section of European swordmanship into Classical and Modern? Great work on the article!Ranp 22:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote of confidence! Breaking up the Modern section probably wouldn't be a bad idea. What would you think of subsections: Classical, Historical, Sport? That way the big three modern western ambitions each have their own little section? - xiliquierntalk 22:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Japanese Section
I'll see what I can do about this and the Other Asian section - I might be able to dig up a citable blurb or two about Southeast Asian swordsmanship. Just saying that I'm on board. Kensai Max 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Pacific/Philipino Section
I think this should be added in. I am particularly interested in the notion that the Spanish and Portugues traders influenced the native fighting arts, which use two sticks (sometimes equal length, sometimes one long and one short). The sticks can be traded for blades at any time. It is theorized that the European sword arts of rapier and dagger influenced this. Even if this were not the case, historically documented evidence of possible "cross-pollination of sword arts" is appropriate for the article.
Also, I think there needs to be some mention of De Re Militari. This Roman document offers a primary reference to the training of Roman soldiers, including the use of the "pell".